Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

nirgal · 2002-08-15 04:25:06

Read this article. That's really interesting. Does anyone know how influential the final report of the commission is likely to be?

Mark S · 2002-08-15 07:51:00

Very interesting...

The commission's findings have the potential to rejuvenate a slumping space program, if the commission is conducted correctly. They are looking at advanced propulsion, possibly something beyond nuclear thermal rockets and ion engines. Hopefully this means that VASIMR will survive and Orion will be resurrected.

I really don't know how President Bush and his administration feel about space in general. His father wanted to make a 30-year national commitment to space, but that didn't go over well with Congress. The current president has his hands tied with foreign policy right now. But he is also the most pro-nuclear president in a long time. If anybody comes up wih a serious short-term proposal for exploration using nuclear power, I believe that the administration will support it.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-08-29 03:18:18

I'm sorry Mark, don't dream about nuclear rockets from the Earth ground...

At best (for now), we could use nuclear generators like the ones of the Pioneers (in fact bigger i hope) to generate energy on board for Ion propulsion and then on Mars for sabatier reactor and station power supply.

This said, i don't think NASA will be able to do anything since US gov has a war to do in Irak, and some big problems with the budget and the nasdaq crack...

But it's a good sign that someone at least speak about really going to Mars at Nasa, since that mean they will maybe be open to a join with others to achieve this goal. Others are ESA, Russians, Chinese and Japanese space agencies.

I think we will all go or none will go, it's too much expensive to really colonize another planet.

OK, a agree that for a 1 month on Mars time with 3 years travel, maybe they can. But who cares?

NASA spent 200 b$ to on on the Moon... and what ? Nothing !!!

NASA spent 100 b$ for ISS for what? nobody knows !!!

So if we go to Mars, it's to stay, not just for a visit...

I hope so.

Mark S · 2002-08-30 15:37:18

Nobody has seriously suggested ground launch of nuclear rockets since the 1960s.

I imagine a nuclear roadmap that includes RTG-powered ion rockets for missions to Pluto, nuclear thermal rockets for near term expeditions to Mars (see the NASA DRM from 1998), VASIMR for the colonization of Mars, and Orion nuclear pulse rockets for trips to Jupiter and Saturn in the 2070 or later time frame.

Not only can we rule out a ground launch for Orion, but precautions have to be taken when firing the engine in earth orbit. The fallout from the bombs would be carried back to the ground by earth's magnetic field. Neutron bombs would be essential to reduce the amount of fallout. Even still, Freeman Dyson was not impressed with the fallout produced by a Neutron Bomb and insisted that a cleaner bomb be built before proceeding with Orion.

Merp · 2002-08-31 20:21:54

Mark S,

I'm confused... how can there be fallout in space? There is no material to 'fall out'... no ash, air, etc. A particular reference comes to mind in the US / USSR EMP attack options of the cold war, where a nuke is detonated in the stratosphere, and since there is no material to absorb the radiation it all gets emitted as gamma rays, etc.

If Dyson was concerned he would probably know what he was on about... so what am I missing or not understanding?

Gibbon · 2002-09-01 05:01:25

3 years travel??? I don't think it will take that long. From what I've read the entire journey with a month on the surface could be done in 1.5-2 years.
I could be wrong of course but 3 years a tad excessive.

Mark S · 2002-09-01 07:50:07

In response to Merp and Gibbon:

The fallout Dyson was most concerned about was the fission fragments produced by the bomb. Heavy radioactive elements left over from the splitting of Uranium would sit in orbit until the earth's magnetic field carried them to the north and south poles.

A typical opposition-class mission to Mars, with a stay time of one month, takes around 640 days. While this type is shorter than a conjunction class mission (~910 days), it leaves little time for science on Mars, and the ship must get a gravity assist from Venus. The Venus flyby is a tough engineering challenge because the ship needs to be protected from the intense heat and solar radiation in the vicinity of Venus. This is why Robert Zubrin and NASA both agree on the conjunction-class mission.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-09-03 02:02:08

Hello all,

Gibbon, sorry for my bad english, i think i miswrite somewhere soi was not understood. I wanted to say that when the vehicle is en route for Mars and something wrong arrives, it could take 3 years so that this vehicle is able to come back on Earth because the positions of the planets and the trajectory of the vehicle.

The 1 year travel for one month on Mars is described in a novel from Baxter, sStephen, Voyage. I would not go there.

I think that the more time you are in space (not on a planet) the less chances you have to survive. So this project is just bad because:
- We will never 'colonize' Mars if we need 1 year to go there just to stay 1 month... (and don't forget the year to come back).
- I think this 'bad' project is here just to show how difficult it is to go to Mars and so to abort all and any project of 'colonization'.
- It is like the Apollo project, just to go there and forget it after...

So I do not subscribe to this project, this is not a Human Mars Mission because I even think that the selected people will not survive to this. (My mother in law was a russian engineer working on space safety in Energia company, she think that this kind of mission has a very little probability of success...)

So I wait for a real Human Mars Mission...

Just a word about Nuclear energy in space, a new 'stopped' nuclear reactor IS NOT radioactive because to avoid the reaction, the 'graphite bars' (material used to control the reaction) has to stop all the neutrons. So if it is shielded, in case of mission failure and crash on ground, there are no risks (remember that when the shuttle exploded, the crew survived, so a reactor should too). But a used reactor become really radioactive so it has to be 'far' of all humans beings and electronics stuff. And if this reactor come back to Earth, we have to avoid any possibility to it to come 'too' near of it.

The real problem with nuclear reactor, is that the 'wrong' education given to people make them be afraid. (Add to this that greenpeace and other forbid the 'cleaning' of nuclear waste, we know how to do it in France, but the 'cleaning' reactor was stopped because of 'greens'...)

CC

Mark S · 2002-09-03 07:46:04

Three cheers for France's nuclear power program!

At least there is one country that builds breeder reactors and reprocesses spent fuel. I wait anxiously for the day when the United States adopts breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing.

Nirgal82 · 2002-09-03 09:52:51

CC, have you read "The Case for Mars"?
It details a mission plan that takes 6 months for outbound journey, approximately 1 M-year surface stay (500 days)
and 6 months for a return voyage.
The book was written by Robert Zubrin and Richard Wagner.
If you are unfamilliar with it I highly recommend picking up a copy. It will explain alot.
It isn't a perfect plan however, but it does address most if not all the major issues involved, short-term and long term
As we are finding on another discussion thats going on in these forums, there are holes and flaws to be patched.
Its also under human missions called, Mars Direct Rethought.

Your friendly neighborhood Martian...
-Matt

RobertDyck · 2002-09-03 14:17:42

Actually, the United States military has breeder reactors. Those use neutrons from fission of uranium U235 to convert uranium U238 into plutonium Pu239. Of uranium dug out of the ground, 99% is U238 which is not easily fissile. Commercial reactors in Canada use non-enriched uranium (1% U235) and just let the U238 sit around. Commercial reactors in the US require 2% U235, so the uranium has to be enriched. The left-over U238 is called depleted. Since uranium is heavier than lead and about as strong as steel, but U238 has very little radioactivity, it makes excellent cannon shells. Depleted uranium shells were used in the Gulf War. Plutonium Pu239 is a richer fuel than U235, but that also makes it good for atomic bombs. Its potential for nuclear weapons is what has prevented commercial breeder reactors in the US, but the technology to enrich uranium can simply be stepped-up to make uranium fission bombs anyway.

Last I heard on TV, the US military is decommissioning nuclear bombs. This involves dismantling them, but the plutonium is left over. To ensure bombs can't be reassembled, they are destroying the plutonium. The only way to destroy an element is in a nuclear reactor, so several commercial reactors are receiving small quantities of plutonium shaped into fuel rods.

Breeder reactors use radiation to convert the mild U238 into plutonium, which can be used as fuel, but the decay products are the real danger. Uranium will eventually decay into lead, but the intermediate products decay quickly (short half-life) and release a lot of radiation. It is the "fast and hot" elements that are the problem. They may decay relatively quickly, but it can still take decades or centuries before the radiation dies down enough to be safe. In contrast, I have seen video of workers loading uranium into fuel rods with their fingers. They wear the same plastic gloves you get with household oven cleaner.

I haven't heard of anyone developing a breeder reactor that recycles the fast-and-hots.

Mark S · 2002-09-03 17:21:08

An international commission is looking at a fourth-generation nuclear reactor system. The new reactor design would be a sodium-cooled "fast reactor," much like previous breeders. The plant would also have a reprocessing facility where fissionable elements and U-238 would be extracted from the waste. These reactors won't come around until the 2030 time period, but they will work to eliminate much of the waste at Yucca Mountain and the excess nuclear weapons in the U.S. and Russia.

Phobos · 2002-09-03 18:06:22

- It is like the Apollo project, just to go there and forget it after...

Actually Zubrin wants to send multiple manned missions to Mars and to eventually start nesting habs together into something of a permanent Mars base. This is the biggest reason why I like Zubrin's ideas. If we only do a "flags and footprints" type mission to Mars we can pretty much kiss going back to Mars goodbye for a long time. Such a one shot mission, I think, would ultimately turn out bad for any hopes of colonizing the Solar System and that's why I would never vote for a one time mission to Mars. And I agree with Nirgal. If you haven't read it you might pick up "The Case for Mars" by Zubrin. You'll see that Mars Direct is the opposite of "go one time and forget it" types of missions.

Palomar · 2002-09-03 19:07:55

Actually, the United States military has breeder reactors. Those use neutrons from fission of uranium U235 to convert uranium U238 into plutonium Pu239. Of uranium dug out of the ground, 99% is U238 which is not easily fissile. Commercial reactors in Canada use non-enriched uranium (1% U235) and just let the U238 sit around. Commercial reactors in the US require 2% U235, so the uranium has to be enriched.

*Hellooooo, Mr. RobertDyck I hope you don't mind my asking, but what is your avatar supposed to represent? I've been wondering ever since I saw your first post, and decided to ask [btw, sorry to butt into the conversation this way]. It looks like a missile with writing on it [I tend to get distracted when the talk gets too technical for lil ol' me]. Just wondering.

And I agree with you about non-enriched uranium. I *never* use it in my baked goods!

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2002-09-03 19:40:05

what is your avatar supposed to represent?

That is the logo of my little company. It is the name Ardeco surrounded by an ancient Egyptian cartouche. Egyptian hieroglyphs would surround an important person's name that way. The oval is a highly stylized rope, and the vertical line on the right represents the ends of the rope. I'm not Egyptian, actually I'm Canadian and my ancestors are English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and Mennonite. The Mennonites started in Holland and wandered all over Europe before settling in Canada. I just thought this thing from hieroglyphics looked neat, and it would be cool to use an ancient symbol as a modern logo. The horizontal line through the letters ending with a starburst in the O was just to make it futuristic and more cool. Actually, the logo is supposed to say "aerospace" in the space beneath Ardeco, but compression to an icon made it unreadable. I like your impression that it looks like a missile.

Phobos · 2002-09-03 20:02:14

And I agree with you about non-enriched uranium. I *never* use it in my baked goods!

LOL! Yeah gotta put some nutrients back into it for it to be healthy. Since we're on the topic of what peoples' avatars mean I've wanted to ask what "Ecrasatz Infame" means. Sounds like it might be Latin for something. Does "infame" share any similiarities with "infamous?"

That is the logo of my little company. It is the name Ardeco surrounded by an ancient Egyptian cartouche. Egyptian hieroglyphs would surround an important person's name that way.

I also borrowed my avatar from an ancient Egyptian engraving. When I think of Mars I often think of the ancient Egyptians for some reason. Maybe it's because Mars is desert-like and looks like the kind of place where the types of monuments the ancient Egyptians built would look at home.

Palomar · 2002-09-03 22:27:31

And I agree with you about non-enriched uranium. I *never* use it in my baked goods!

LOL! Yeah gotta put some nutrients back into it for it to be healthy. <!--emo&:) Since we're on the topic of what peoples' avatars mean I've wanted to ask what "Ecrasatz Infame" means. Sounds like it might be Latin for something. Does "infame" share any similiarities with "infamous?"
That is the logo of my little company. It is the name Ardeco surrounded by an ancient Egyptian cartouche. Egyptian hieroglyphs would surround an important person's name that way.
I also borrowed my avatar from an ancient Egyptian engraving. When I think of Mars I often think of the ancient Egyptians for some reason. Maybe it's because Mars is desert-like and looks like the kind of place where the types of monuments the ancient Egyptians built would look at home.

*Ecrasez l'infame is French for "Crush Infamy" or "Crush the Infamous." It was Voltaire's motto, and by it he meant to crush any contrivance which sought to oppress, enslave, and degrade mankind; he was a great humanitarian [in *practice*, not just in words]. Of course, French is a Latin-based language.

As for Phobos' Egypt/Mars comment: Hey -- I want a pyramidal hab, painted in a paisley pattern of psychadelic colors.

Thank you, Mr. RobertDyck for explaining. Yes, I now see it is a cartouche -- lying on its side. "Cartouche" is the French word for "cartridge;" Napoleon's men [on the Egyptian expedition] said the enlongated ovals resembled their bullet cartridges, and thus called them "cartouches." What does your company do/make?

As regards "The left-over U238 is called depleted" and "just letting the U238 sit around" -- time for a Tupperware party!

--Cindy

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-09-04 02:34:54

Hello everybody,

just to answer to RobertDyck who said:
I haven't heard of anyone developing a breeder reactor that recycles the fast-and-hots.

It is French SuperPhenix reactor which was first done to create more radioactive elements than it uses by converting U238 in U235. After the 'greens' said we don't need uranium for future, they wanted to modify it to 'burn' the wastes folowing theses steps:
Make fuel rods with the worse waste (very radioactive/long life), irradiate (atoms will be broken by neutrons to create new smaller atoms) them to create other waste, but these ones are partially low radioactive or 'short life'. Sort the waste to purify the remaining worse waste and do again... After testing in SuperPhenix, we hoped it would be possible to do the same in standard nuclear plant (but with lower quantities).
But the 'greens' said we don't need to clean uranium too, so we have now a lot of waste that 'greens' don't want in their garden... The same kind of problems in US?
Isn't there something wrong in their brain ?
And I think SuperPhenix used Sodium cooling, but it is very dangerous since sodium burns in air.

To Phobos:
I didn't read the book but I saw the Zubrin's program explainations on several sites. I do agree with the quality of this for a 'low' budget mission but it's a lot of 'one shots', not a real colonisation project. The comments I gave before are about Russian program.
I explained somewhere else on that site what I think a program should be: Several slow heavy loads to Mars with freight before sending the crew, faster travel with a big crew(20-24) to Mars, only one big station at the beginning and possibility for part (or all) of the crew to stay more than 1.5 years. So I don't really trust the Mars Direct concept, I prefer some orbit rendezvous to get better weight/fuel ratios.

And I would be very happy that someone really want to do a really ambitious space program whereever it comes from.

CC

Mark S · 2002-09-04 14:20:44

Mars Direct is supposed to lead to a permanent settlement on Mars after enough habitats and ERVs have been landed and linked. In some ways, Zubrin's idea is better than using cyclers to establish a base on Mars. The cycler provides life support for travelers on the trip between earth and Mars, but it never stops at either planet. The people and cargo that hitch a ride on the cycler still need to expend the same amount of energy to get on the cycler. Wouldn't it make sense to just send the cargo elements directly to Mars?

As long as we can fabricate cheap cargo elements (like habitats) and big dumb boosters, it doesn't make sense to use cyclers for anything other than human transport. Just launch everything the simplest and best way---
Mars Direct!

Phobos · 2002-09-04 22:03:03

But the 'greens' said we don't need to clean uranium too, so we have now a lot of waste that 'greens' don't want in their garden... The same kind of problems in US?
Isn't there something wrong in their brain ?

The US is bursting at the seams with "greens" who have an irrational hatred of nuclear technology across the board. Even if we found a way to reduce the half-life of the waste significantly most of them would jump on their hobby horses and deride the evil of nuclear power no doubt. I just wonder what they'll do if fusion power becomes a viable alternative. Since fusion produces no waste they can't evoke the "nuke waste" arguments, maybe they'll try to kill it by saying it could still be used to make plutonium.

Several slow heavy loads to Mars with freight before sending the crew, faster travel with a big crew(20-24) to Mars, only one big station at the beginning and possibility for part (or all) of the crew to stay more than 1.5 years. So I don't really trust the Mars Direct concept, I prefer some orbit rendezvous to get better weight/fuel ratios.

So you want to setup a fairly large colony from the first mission? If that's your intent I can't say I'm really against it even though doing it that way might be prohibitively expensive considering the great mass you would need to keep 20-40 people alive and comfortable. With Mars Direct it might be easier to sell the idea of building a Martian colony to the public and politicians since it would only be built up in little steps and be cheaper (or at least appear cheaper) as a result.

C.COMMARMOND (FR) · 2002-09-05 12:34:59

Hi Phobos, do you think it cheaper to design a 600 T rocket or to use 5 existant rockets?

Mars direct needs a very big unknown (from me) rocket...

And every body speak about redundancy I think about redundancies in the crew too, so I say we need 24 people to recreate a 'society' with more interactions than in a 6 crew. I said and repeat we can use 3 or 4 energia to land 100 tons (a haband ISPP landed softly, and freigh (food, spare parts and material) landed roughly) on Mars than to energia to put a 40 tons vehicle and 100 ton fuel to send crew to Mars.

I did not really calculate about 40 tons and 100 tons so I am ready to speak about it.

I just made a post on another thread about a new possible kind of thruster (50% Nuke like 50% plasma like but with no nuke nor plasma) with a possible Isp of 1200 which could make my idea easy.

Other thing, 4 'simple' loosable missions plus one 'non loosable' would be better than one complicated 'non loosable' one.

Think about it...

CC

TJohn · 2002-09-20 12:01:43

Quote: The US is bursting at the seams with "greens" who have an irrational hatred of nuclear technology across the board. Even if we found a way to reduce the half-life of the waste significantly most of them would jump on their hobby horses and deride the evil of nuclear power no doubt. I just wonder what they'll do if fusion power becomes a viable alternative. Since fusion produces no waste they can't evoke the "nuke waste" arguments, maybe they'll try to kill it by saying it could still be used to make plutonium.

Preach on, Phobos!! I agree with you whole heartedly!! Now, we need to get the current administration to "get the ball rolling" on nuclear fusion research and eventually to propulsion systems and energy sources for our future spacecraft!

Phobos · 2002-09-20 22:23:17

Preach on, Phobos!! I agree with you whole heartedly!! Now, we need to get the current administration to "get the ball rolling" on nuclear fusion research and eventually to propulsion systems and energy sources for our future spacecraft!

Glad someone out there agrees with me. I definately concur that we need to pump more funding into nuclear fusion research even though the anti-technological, authoritarian nuke-phobes out there will throw a tantrum over it. If we're ever going to reach the stars or colonize any place off Earth for that matter we're going to need energy sources with massive outputs. Of course there's a large element of anti-human scum in the greenie movement that would shudder in disgust at the possibility of humanity spreading throughout the universe! There's no better way to prevent such a "tragedy" then to put the clamps on technology that could generate ungodly amounts of power.

nirgal · 2002-09-21 13:52:27

Recapturing the Kennedy Vision

"In September, 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave his now famous speech outlining his vision of human space flight. That speech at the Rice University stadium in Houston is, of course, now seen as the key proclamation of what became our nation's program for the very successful missions to the moon.

Lampson has arranged with Rice University for a 40th anniversary commemorative event. As part of the commemoration, there will be a round table discussion of the future of our nation's space program. The key theme of the discussion is establishing and implementing a vision for space exploration and development for the next 40 years."

nirgal · 2002-11-18 17:10:08

The commission has released its final report. Check it out.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-15 04:25:06

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#2 2002-08-15 07:51:00

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#3 2002-08-29 03:18:18

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#4 2002-08-30 15:37:18

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#5 2002-08-31 20:21:54

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#6 2002-09-01 05:01:25

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#7 2002-09-01 07:50:07

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#8 2002-09-03 02:02:08

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#9 2002-09-03 07:46:04

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#10 2002-09-03 09:52:51

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#11 2002-09-03 14:17:42

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#12 2002-09-03 17:21:08

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#13 2002-09-03 18:06:22

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#14 2002-09-03 19:07:55

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#15 2002-09-03 19:40:05

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#16 2002-09-03 20:02:14

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#17 2002-09-03 22:27:31

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#18 2002-09-04 02:34:54

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#19 2002-09-04 14:20:44

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#20 2002-09-04 22:03:03

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#21 2002-09-05 12:34:59

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#22 2002-09-20 12:01:43

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#23 2002-09-20 22:23:17

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#24 2002-09-21 13:52:27

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

#25 2002-11-18 17:10:08

Re: Pres. commission wants ambitious space program

Board footer